Author Topic: Oh Gibson, what will you do next..... (Read 915 times)

tmoney61092 · « **on:** November 09, 2010, 10:57:28 AM »

well i figured i'd just share this with everyone, looks just slightly ridiculous, yet thought provoking with everything on it

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Firebird/Gibson-USA/Firebird-X.aspx

~Taylor

mike1762 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 09, 2010, 12:01:49 PM »

Wow... I can't believe they're leaving that comment board up and running.

cozmik_cowboy · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2010, 12:05:03 PM »

Having had close personal relationships with a '53 Les Paul & a '59 ES-330-TD, I weep every time Gibson brings out something like this.

Peter

hydrargyrum · « **Reply #3 on:** November 09, 2010, 02:12:27 PM »

I've been laughing over this for some time. It doesn't really bother me that they simplified a guitar for people who are too lazy to tune it themselves. It doesn't bother me that they pretended to be original and unique in dropping a bunch of crappy effects into an old design. And, it only marginally bothers me that they've chosen to pollute a elegant and classic instrument that has it's own unique voice. What really bothers me is the hype they've thrown up around this. It's just laughable to pretend that any of this crap has revolutionized the guitar world. This hardly counts as innovation. Gibson should stick to making instruments that focus on tonewoods, construction, and the illustrious legacy of their company. Cramming gadgets into their old instruments is a tired approach that has never worked.

chuckc · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2010, 02:44:08 PM »

Well, it's not as bad as the Reverse Flying V they came out with a year or so ago. That has to be the ugliest, over-priced, disgusting guitar they could have possibly thought of.

http://www.robinmalau.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/gibson-reverse-flying-v.jpg

bigredbass · « **Reply #5 on:** November 09, 2010, 09:59:36 PM »

A friend who's a Gibson nut had forwarded this to me last week, and it struck a thought I had when I worked there in the early 90's, which also occurred to me about motorcycles:

IF you are an iconic brand such as Gibson or Harley-Davidson, how DO you move off into the future with new products while saddled with your landmarks?

Certainly, Gibson will always make Les Pauls and the usual suspects. There'll never be a Harley without Sportsters and ElectraGlides. But then what? How do you grow your business with new products with your identity?

This was prompted as I've certainly admired (Hinckley) Triumph's success: Yes you can still buy a latter-day Bonneville or Scrambler, but their new products have retained an obvious Triumph/British identity. BMW's mold-breaking S1000RR is another case, certainly a huge jump from their Boxer twin past and present.

Of course, this is condensing a huge problem to a short posting, there's lots of business school grads wrestling with this in the ad business, Mad Men indeed.

It's always seemed like in the instrument business this problem seems to linger. Fender is up against this. Yet on the other hand, other companies never establish an identity. There's lots of nice Ibanez axes, but WHO are they? Then there's the occasional runaway hit, like the DX7 for Yamaha, or Hartley's amazing run with the Wolfgang axes. It seems easier for a new company to establish something new (PRS, Taylor) then for an established player to 'change its spots' (Martin's seemingly endless run of 'Signature' axes, do I really need a Richie Sambora six and twelve?).

I don't like Gibson. I also don't envy the corner they've painted themselves in, but they certainly bought the paint and brushes. And yeah, this thing is horrible !

J o e y

terryc · « **Reply #6 on:** November 10, 2010, 02:14:14 AM »

Maybe we musicians are stuck in traditionalism and frown upon the classic instrument builders designing and constructing such instruments.
Bigredbass..you mention Ibanez but somehow we expect the japanese to do stuff like that because it has always been like that with japanese products..Sony Walkman, Yamaha DX7, Roland GR synth guiters etc.
Does any one here object to master volume, twin volumes, twin filters, twin Vari Q and two output sockets on their basses, some Alembics have even had bass & treble controls as well as the filters..is that versatility or just control overkill??

tmoney61092 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 10, 2010, 05:07:52 AM »

A couple months ago I saw on Fender's website where they had made a Stratocaster that had an automatic tuning system like Gibson developed, or maybe I'm just going crazy.

Gibson has made some really nice products that kind of threw a curveball at me on why they stopped making them, like the Victory Artist bass, easily the best sounding/playing bass I've played

Also found this bass, which to me, is actually really cool

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Bass/Gibson-USA/BFG-Bass/Mobile.aspx

~Taylor

benson_murrensun · « **Reply #8 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:05:31 AM »

While I am not attracted to that new Gibson computer, I do give them credit for going out on a limb and testing the waters.
Joey, I can't resist the temptation to comment when we start comparing guitars to motorcycles...
Harley-Davidson is easy to criticise for bowing to tradition, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (why have they not put a water-cooled engine in a touring bike???). However, they did come out with the V-Rod, which is completely non-traditional (as well as a big success). Triumph certainly bows to tradition with some of their current bikes, but with others have completely departed from the old mold (Daytona 675, Speed Four, Sprint, TT600, even the Rocket III). BMW seems to be more daring when it comes to making a better product and then waiting for the consumer to recognize it. When the engineers have as much say as the marketing department, a balance has been struck that can benefit the consumer.
Bringing it back to guitars, as long as Gibson doesn't eliminate the old go-to designs, I am interested to see what new stuff they come up with. Success will ultimately be decided by the consumer, for the most part.

811952 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:20:29 AM »

A friend of mine has a Les Paul Recording Bass from a bygone era. I played it at a jam and was very surprised how sweet that thing was/is, and the sounds that came out of it. I don't seen much that they've done in the intervening years that is better, except for the some of the Artist series...

rami · « **Reply #10 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:37:58 AM »

I'm still laughing at that Reverse Flying V!!!

When they came out with that, it marked the moment I TRULY lost my respect for Gibson.

They've really lost their way as a company. They're out of ideas and creativity.

LOL!!!!

hydrargyrum · « **Reply #11 on:** November 10, 2010, 02:58:22 PM »

You're not crazy Taylor, Fender has the VG Stratocaster. It didn't actually tune the guitar for you, but it did simulate a bunch of alternate tunings. What I appreciate about a company like Alembic is that they are dedicated to a very traditional idea, and that is transmitting the pure sound of an instrument, but they do it in very non-traditional ways. The use of technology by Alembic is intended to bring out the inherent qualities of an instrument. The products from Fender and Gibson seem devoted to imitating something else. There's seemingly little focus on the inherent musical qualities of the instrument, and greater attention paid to modeling it to sound like something it isn't. And let's be honest, as convenient as having effects built into a guitar might be, it cannot compare to the tonal properties of devoted units built by people who live and breathe electronics.

bigredbass · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:18:14 PM »

Yes, Benson, that was the point:

If you're a Harley or Gibson or Leica or Porsche or Chanel or any brand that's thoroughly cemented to an iconic, successful brand model, HOW do you move on and get A) New customers to take a try that it's NOT the same old Brand X and simultaneously B) not drive off the faithful who'll buy the same Brand X thing over and over?

BTW, when did tuning get to be such a problem. . .

(at this point your narrator is giving a pass to the many tuning-challenged dolts he's played with over the years)

. . . when you can buy little credit card-sized tuners for less than 20 bucks?

I can see it coming: This onboard tuning will fade as one of those ideas that just didn't quite make it, and the 'pitch correction' technology from recording will migrate to the front face of most amps !

J o e y

David Houck · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2010, 07:46:10 AM »

I suppose the tuning thing would come in handy if you're changing tunings in the middle of a song, as say the A section is in standard tuning and the B section is an open tuning. I guess it might also work for some pedal steel like effects. It might be something that someone like Michael Manring might make use of.

benson_murrensun · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2010, 09:04:39 AM »

If all this stuff with tuning aids/pitch correction keeps up, I may have a strong reaction and toss all my electronic tuners and go with a tuning fork! (NOT)